From the reactions and effects I’ve seen with respect to smoking weed versus eating a bowl of ice cream, I do not think the comparison is very apt.
How about the huge reduction in the size of the federal government? I thought that you, of all people, would leap on that with both feet. Especially since you’ve been unable to muster any arguments as for why pot should be illegal, aside from, “Pot’s illegal.” Saving money (entirely apart from possible tax revenues) is far and away the best argument for legalization, and the only one you haven’t addressed in this thread. Unless I missed something?
Sometime you should watch me smoke a bowl of weed, and then eat a bowl of ice cream. I guarantee you that the effects of the later will be much more… dramatic than the results of the former. Better stock up on toilet paper and air freshener first, though.
I disappointed in you Miller. I thought you could engage in reasoned debate on the issues without having to raise a stink.
I’ve jumped into too many of these debates before with the unpopular view that I don’t quite get the compelling case for legalizing pot. Rather than rehash (har har) all of that, I do have one genuine question to those who favor legalization.
Other than requiring buyers of pot to be of a certain age, what restrictions do you believe should be put on recreational marijuana if it were legalized? Right now, in nearly every place in the country, I can walk down the street smoking a Camel Light, but not sipping on a bourbon and seven. Would people be free to spark up on street corners? What about bars – would it be limited to special coffee shops, or should someone be able to toke up in your typical watering hole? Would pot smoking be allowed everywhere that cigarette smoking is allowed, or might people be able to smoke Marlboros but not Maui wowie in various places? Or would this be someone that someone would only be allowed to use in the privacy of one’s home?
Generally speaking, I think it should be treated the same as tobacco. Which, in California, means it wouldn’t be allowed in bars or restaurants. 'Course, I’ve got problems with those laws, too, so there’s a whole seperate debate right there.
Considering Pot has an immediate second hand effect, I would have to say after legalization, ensure it follows all the restrictions that Tobacco does and include no pot smoking while driving. In NYC there is no smoking at offices, Arena’s, Concert Halls, Theatres and Restaurants.
I’m glad you brought this up, it made me at least think about the after affects of legalization. I would rather not be subjected to the smoke, I just think people should be allowed to smoke.
At home, or at designated places like hash bars.
As a number of states have. But this still results in people being jailed for marijuana, so I think it’s fair to ask what else can be done.
That’s true, I just used the first handy stat I could find. Unless I misunderstand your question, ‘comparative harms’ sounds like speculation. I think the number of people harmed by the stuff being illegal is greater than the harm that would come from legalization, or the ‘help’ that comes from keeping it illegal.
And most of us, when we hear hooves, expect to see horses, not zebras. Yes, it’s possible that that headache or stomachache is cancer, but it’s much, much more likely that it’s an ordinary headache or indigestion.
I have absolutely no idea what any of this has to do with skiing in the summer or “taking the easy way out” 
You miss my position.
I don’t have a dog in this fight. I don’t know enough to. I was hoping to read the cogent arguments for legalization and the cogent responses for criminalization, and reach a decision.
Unfortunately, there have been precious few cogent arguments for legalization. Equally unfortunately, they have thus far carried the day, because there has been even less of a cogent voice for criminalization.
How about this?
IT IS WRONG FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO LOCK SOMEONE UP FOR DOING SOMTHING IN THE PRIVACY OF THIER OWN HOME WHICH IS CAUSING NO ONE ANY HARM WHATSOEVER.
I tried, but I cannot think of any good arguments in favor of criminalization.
I suspect that the people in favor of continued criminalization would argue that use of marijuana DOES cause harm - to the user, and to society.
I think it’s pretty clear that it causes harm to the user. I’m not so persuaded about the harm to society, and I’m not persuaded that “harming oneself” should always be illegal.
But your argument relies on a characterization not accepted by the other side.
Pro-legalize person: “Pot should be legal.”
Anti-legalize person: “We can’t do that, it’s a harmful drug.”
Pro: “How is it harmful?”
Anti: “it just is!”
:rolleyes:
How is, “We could save billions of dollars annually,” not a cogent argument?
Cite?
It’s not our fault the other side hasn’t put in an appearance to refute our arguments. If you don’t think that argument is persuasive, show us why. You seem to be assuming that the other side of the debate has some crippling counter argument that undercuts everything being said in this thread. I say that no such argument exsists, and there is absolutely no defensible legal, moral, or scientific reason to outlaw marijuana.
Prove me wrong. I dare ya.
Honestly, I’m at a loss as to what you would consider a cogent argument for legalization. The government would make money instead of wasting it, and, in the process, take it out of the hands of criminals. A patently unfair law rooted in racism, misinformation, disinformation, and outright lies could be overturned. People who have never hurt a fly would no longer have to go to jail because they prefer one intoxicant over another.
What, exactly, were you expecting to hear?
Yet, time and time again, they have failed to show how it harms society. And when we look to the Dutch, we can see some pretty solid evidence that it doesn’t. Hell, the anti-drug people are so desperate to find something to latch onto that they’ve been blaming pot smokers for funding terrorists. What does that tell you?
My personal argument for legaliation goes something like, “Based on our history during Prohibition, we have strong evidence that illegalisation does not work, is expensive, encourages the development of organised crime (which these days is not infrequently terrorist, though I hear some drug cartels in Columbia refused to do business with Bin Laden because poisoning their American customers is bad for business), increases the crime rate, encourages the usage of harder drugs because they’re more compact for the same dosage and thus have higher sale price for equivalent (largely mass or volume-based) risk, increases the odds of bad drugs because adulteration is common on the black market, and makes it much more likely that what use exists is irresponsible use.”
Heh. The webpage-based cites I used to back up this argument when I did a buttload of research for it last year are all dead links now; I do believe that this is pretty mainstream historical understanding, though. (The thing that darkly amused me when I was doing the research is that drunk driving as a phenomenon is largely an unintended consequence of Prohibition – before then, people tended to drink at home, but Prohibition set a pattern of going out to drink (at speakeasies and the like) that lasted after the Amendment was repealed.)
I’d add to that that a lot of modern prohibition stuff is, IMO, rooted in fearmongering (which I oppose on principle) and deception; I have seen several parents characterise the stuff their kids are exposed to in school as “DARE to lie to your kids about drugs” and needing to give out more information about hard drugs than they really wanted so that their kids understood that what they had been given by the school programs was misinformation. I also believe that this sort of thing strongly undermines the authority of the people putting it forth, and tends to obliquely encourage heavier drug use in some people by the logic, “They were lying to me about pot, they’re probably lying about crack and heroin too.” It certainly cultivates disrespect for the law.
I would actually have less objection to prohibition if it didn’t seem to go consistently hand-in-hand with bad information. I mean, I would still be of the opinion that it’s stupid, expensive, and an unreasonable infringement upon individual autonomy, but at least it wouldn’t be actively engaged in preventing people from being able to make their own decisions from a basis in solid facts about effects, side-effects, appropriate risk analysis, and an awareness of the law and associated penalties.
I find this a cogent set of arguments, and entirely sufficient to make the case; I do not know if you would agree.
That, at least, seems more likely to be because of the increased availability and afforability of automobiles over the same period of time, not because of any behavior pattern started because of prohibition.
A fair point, and almost certainly a major influencing factor (especially in why it persisted). The relevant impression I got from my research was that the majority of alcohol consumption happened at home in the period immediately before Prohibition; drunk driving went up immediately during it because people were getting their alcohol elsewhere and having to get home afterwards.
That just seems very counter-intuitive to me. If before, when booze was legal, people mostly drank it at home, once it became forbidden, it seems that this behavior would be re-enforced, not abandoned, as it would be harder to get caught drinking in the privacy of your own home than in a public speakeasy that could be raided by the cops at any time. From what I understand, drunk driving wasn’t even considered especially criminal until only a few decades ago. I wonder if that spike you saw was a result of drunk driving being tracked because being drunk was suddenly illegal, and seeing a car weaving all over the road was an easy way to bust offenders.
That appears to be the case because key arguments (that the government is wasting lots resources needed for more pressing security needs, breeding disrespect for the law, damaging its legitimacy, etc) are not so much points in favor of cannabis as points against this version of the prohibitionists’ Noble Experiment.